By Daniel L. Hadjinian
3 Shidler J. L. Com. & Tech. 5 (2006)
Corporate & Commercial
12/4/2006
Two businesses that advertise online, Lane’s Gifts and Collectibles and Advanced Internet Technologies, recently filed lawsuits against Google, and other intermediaries that offer sponsored advertising services. The companies allege that these intermediaries failed to adequately protect them against “click fraud.” Click fraud refers to the practice whereby competitors and other persons may click to view an online ad with no intention of buying, learning about the advertiser’s services, or engaging in any other action that the ad aims to achieve. Plaintiffs allege that the intermediaries breached their contractual duties by charging the companies whose ads they hosted for fraudulent clicks, and by failing to take adequate detection and prevention measures. This Article examines the basic contract law claims underlying these cases and concludes that while contracts may grant the search engines discretion to define chargeable clicks, such discretion might be constrained by the terms of extrinsic writings.
By Kelcey Nichols
3 Shidler J. L. Com. & Tech. 6 (2006)
Litigation
12/4/2006
Recent court decisions in In re Asia Global Crossing, Ltd., People v. Jiang, and Curto v. Medical World Communications have held that attorney-client privilege can protect certain information located on an employer-issued computer from disclosure if the employee had a reasonable expectation of privacy. This Article provides a brief background on attorney-client privilege and explores the factors courts consider when determining whether an employee has this reasonable expectation. These factors include the scope of employer monitoring, the employer-employee agreement pertaining to the computer, the presence of password-protection, the location of the computer, and the relevancy of the evidence to a particular legal proceeding.
By Derek A. Bishop
3 Shidler J. L. Com. & Tech. 7 (2006)
Litigation
12/4/2006
Commercial, governmental, and nonprofit organizations are more frequently reporting instances of data security breaches. This has, in turn, raised fears of identity theft. In some limited instances, companies that maintain large amounts of personal information — such as credit reporting agencies — have been subject to statutory duties to protect that personal information. In some instances, such legislation has also permitted a private cause of action for breach of these duties. Legislatures have expanded these statutes to encompass, at least to a limited degree, all business entities that collect personal information. Recent precedent indicates that courts may follow this trend by declaring security breaches generally foreseeable, and finding a common law duty on the part of companies to protect their data. The ability of a plaintiff to prove compensable harm from the negligent release of personal information, however, may be more difficult than showing the existence of a duty.